Things you did not know

[Indy650]

That the 2.3 liter engines in our trucks are assembled at the Cleveland Engine Plant (Ohio USA).. even though the window sticker showed "Engine: Mexico"

hmm weird mine said Cleveland

Sponsored

 

[Indy650]

I don't know if it's just me but...

• With adaptive cruise engaged and behind a slower vehicle, when I put the turn signal on to change lanes, the truck starts to accelerate at a modest pace

you mean before you move over? Mine seems to start accelerating after I am about half way into the other lane.

 

[FX4Offroad]

I don't know if it's just me but...

• With adaptive cruise engaged and behind a slower vehicle, when I put the turn signal on to change lanes, the truck starts to accelerate at a modest pace

Yeah, mine does that too. I don't mind it accelerating but it moves pretty quickly so be prepared to turn.

 

[Indy650]

The 2.3 is the same of a 70’s Pinto just direct injected and a turbo slapped on.

that couldn't be more wrong. One of the big differences is the Pinto engine is overhead valve and the ecoboost is dual overhead cam this alone is a huge difference. The old Pinto engine was designed by Ford Europe and was replaced by the Mazda derived Duratec engine.

 

[Lone]

And, we'll work out the Ranger tariffs later.

 

[svache]

Or when sounding like “A “ as in neighbor or weigh....and er.. uh...or “Their”
and is it
Appear or a Pear or a Pair or or just Pare?




Regards
Doc

Does it depend on whether the wether likes the weather?

 

[MTB-BRUH]

that couldn't be more wrong. One of the big differences is the Pinto engine is overhead valve and the ecoboost is dual overhead cam this alone is a huge difference. The old Pinto engine was designed by Ford Europe and the 2.3 Duratec is Mazda designed

Your killing me smalls

 

[Indy650]

Your killing me smalls

ya how is that?

 

[Floyd]

that couldn't be more wrong. One of the big differences is the Pinto engine is overhead valve and the ecoboost is dual overhead cam this alone is a huge difference. The old Pinto engine was designed by Ford Europe and was replaced by the Mazda derived Duratec engine.

Sorry wrong again.
The 2.3L Pinto (Lima)engine was all cast iron,2valves per cyl, single overhead cam, with hydraulic lifters. and a timing belt.
The 2.0L German engine was more of a predecessor than the same engine, at best the 2.3L could might be described as a derivative.
Th 2.0L German engine had solid "lifters".
Later "1983?" Ford did build an actual 2.0L version of the 2.3L Lima engine, offered as the base engine in the Ranger.
It was a bit on the pathetic side, built only to make a pricepoint, whereas the German 2.0L was a fantastic tuneable little "HotRod" engine.
The only pushrod 4Cyl engine ever offered in the Pinto was the 1.6L Kent motor in the early models.
Maybe that's what your remembering?

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Sorry wrong again.
The 2.3L Pinto (Lima)engine was all cast iron,2valves per cyl, single overhead cam, with hydraulic lifters. and a timing belt.
The 2.0L German engine was more of a predecessor than the same engine, at best the 2.3L could might be described as a derivative.
Th 2.0L German engine had solid "lifters".
Later "1983?" Ford did build an actual 2.0L version of the 2.3L Lima engine, offered as the base engine in the Ranger.
It was a bit on the pathetic side, built only to make a pricepoint, whereas the German 2.0L was a fantastic tuneable little "HotRod" engine.
The only pushrod 4Cyl engine ever offered in the Pinto was the 1.6L Kent motor in the early models.
Maybe that's what your remembering?

Hi Floyd,

You are spot on! Back Story.

My Chief Engineer at the time, Dave G. envisioned a Ranger with a base 2.0L motor. Engine Engineering told him to go pack sand... So to do his program, I found myself put in charge of this program. It was the program from hell and my career was on the line as if I failed...I was toast. I might have told another back story of this motor or not... In the end we delivered this motor to the public. I could have timed the zero to 60 mph with an hour glass. I got the program done and wrapped up. Was I proud of it ..not in the least, but I did it. My career advanced from there as Dave G was a backer of my resolve to get things done when the "chips were down"...

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[Indy650]

Sorry wrong again.
The 2.3L Pinto (Lima)engine was all cast iron,2valves per cyl, single overhead cam, with hydraulic lifters. and a timing belt.
The 2.0L German engine was more of a predecessor than the same engine, at best the 2.3L could might be described as a derivative.
Th 2.0L German engine had solid "lifters".
Later "1983?" Ford did build an actual 2.0L version of the 2.3L Lima engine, offered as the base engine in the Ranger.
It was a bit on the pathetic side, built only to make a pricepoint, whereas the German 2.0L was a fantastic tuneable little "HotRod" engine.
The only pushrod 4Cyl engine ever offered in the Pinto was the 1.6L Kent motor in the early models.
Maybe that's what your remembering?

your'e right i meant OHC that's my bad. Still they have practically nothing in common. and basic OHC is totally different than DOHC with variable cam timing. If I remember correctly the 2.3 in the pinto had a cast iron head and block. I'd be surprised if they had one single part in common.
Edit:I just seen you already mentioned it was cast iron

 

[Indy650]

I actually didn't know the 1.6 had ohv I just missspoke or misspelled if you will. I think I'll look up that 1.6 though that's probly a neat little engine although I'm sure it's a slug. You don't see many ohv straight 4's. Also I do know the Mazda L engine is an evolution of the older L 4 cyl but to me they are just not comparable. I'm sure I come off as a complete dick however I don't mean to.

 

[NVHoonigan]

Hi Floyd,

You are spot on! Back Story.

My Chief Engineer at the time, Dave G. envisioned a Ranger with a base 2.0L motor. Engine Engineering told him to go pack sand... So to do his program, I found myself put in charge of this program. It was the program from hell and my career was on the line as if I failed...I was toast. I might have told another back story of this motor or not... In the end we delivered this motor to the public. I could have timed the zero to 60 mph with an hour glass. I got the program done and wrapped up. Was I proud of it ..not in the least, but I did it. My career advanced from there as Dave G was a backer of my resolve to get things done when the "chips were down"...

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

I always love your input Phil! I had a 2.9L in the 89 Ranger I drove in high school. I loved that engine and still see that truck running around Northern Nevada every now and then. Any info on why that engine got a bad rap and was only used shortly?

Thanks!

 

[Floyd]

I actually didn't know the 1.6 had ohv I just missspoke or misspelled if you will. I think I'll look up that 1.6 though that's probly a neat little engine although I'm sure it's a slug. You don't see many ohv straight 4's. Also I do know the Mazda L engine is an evolution of the older L 4 cyl but to me they are just not comparable. I'm sure I come off as a complete dick however I don't mean to.

You might be surprised at the Kent engine, in stock trim it was reliable and performed proportionally with a light car like a Pinto or a Cortina.
The Kent motor was well developed for racing though and was a staple in Formula Ford race cars for a generation.
Of course the car barely weighed 900 pounds including the driver.

 

[Indy650]

You might be surprised at the Kent engine, in stock trim it was reliable and performed proportionally with a light car like a Pinto or a Cortina.
The Kent motor was well developed for racing though and was a staple in Formula Ford race cars for a generation.
Of course the car barely weighed 900 pounds including the driver.

that's really cool! Neat little engine.

Sponsored